Monday, January 8, 2018

BROOKSVILLE – Pit Bulls have long been criticized for being extremely dangerous and they are often the “breed” of choice by criminals who use them for dog fighting, which subsequently leaves them unadoptable if they are lucky enough to be rescued before being killed.

Some experts say the Pit Bull is not inherently aggressive but if they have been mistreated or trained to fight, they are more likely to cause severe injury or death to humans and animals if they attack. That’s exactly what one woman says happened to her family on more than one occasion and she wants answers.

Jenna Kazmier posted on social media yesterday, a terrifying story of how THREE PIT BULLS attacked and nearly killed her 26-year-old Pony “Gator.” A pony Kazmier says she’s had since she was 11. The incident happened at her mother’s farm located on Happy Trail in Brookville, where Kazmier says the Pit Bulls entered her parents 5-acre fenced property and severely mauled her Pony. If not for a neighbor witnessing the attack and firing a gun to scare the animals away, the Pony would have most likely died, says Kazmier.

Another neighbor contacted Kazmier and told her that three large Pit Bulls, covered in blood, were standing in her front yard, and that she was afraid to get out of her vehicle. An Animal Control officer arrived and captured two of the animals but the third ran back to its owner at 25035 Richbarn Road. Kazmier tells RNRF that when the Officer grabbed the animals, he stated to the Pit Bulls, “You didn’t do that did you?” Unbeknownst to Kazmier, the Officer proceeded to return the animals back to their owner.

Perplexed at the officer’s casual attitude, Kazmier asked, “Aren’t you going to take any pictures of my Pony or give me a card or something?” Kazmier says the Officer replied, “No, you do that,” and then handed her a business card, and a blank affidavit.

Yesterday, Kasmier and her mother, Christine Whittum met with the Animal Control Officer at the main office in Brooksville, where they asked if the dogs were in custody. Kazmier says the Officer replied, “Oh, I returned them back to the owner.” He further explained that if he brings them back to the shelter, he will have to kill two other dogs.

But this isn’t the first traumatic experience Kazmier and her family have endured with irresponsible Pit Bull owners. Last March, Kazmier says one of her neighbors on Forest Ave allowed a Pit Bull to run free and attack her husband. Brooskville Police to tried to capture the animal by deploying a tazer but it had no effect and just ran back to its owner. The next day, an Animal Control Officer responded to the owner’s residence and removed the tazer barbs but the animal remained in the owner’s custody.

As animal lovers, Kazmier tells RNRF that they didn’t want to shoot the Pit Bull, even though they were well within their rights to protect themselves. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what they were eventually forced to do, after the same Pit Bull grabbed her Chihuahua last September and killed it. When she went to retrieve her dying pet, the Pit Bull charged at her, leaving her husband with no choice but to shoot and kill the animal.

Worried that one day her young children might fall victim to a vicious Pit Bull mauling, Kazmier demanded answers from HCSO, but so far, she says her concerns have gone unanswered.

County Commissioner Steve Champion caught wind of the incident and responded to Kazmier’s post by stating, “There are current laws on the books to help protect citizens and property. You have the right to defend your life and property. A couple of years ago I killed 3 that were killing my goats. Please contact Sheriff Al Nienhuis since this is his responsibility to enforce the law. I’m sure he will handle this.”

Many Hernando County residents are fed up with the attacks and are asking local officials to enact ordinances that restrict or ban Pit Bulls altogether. Miami-Dade County has already banned Pit Bulls and anyone caught in possession faces a $500.00 fine. Other Florida jurisdictions have also implemented regulations.

I asked HCSO Spokesperson Denise Moloney about the incident and what policies might be in place for victims of dog attacks. Moloney replied, “This case is (still active) being investigated by our Agricultural Deputy, therefore, we are unable to release details at this time. There is no HCSO “policy” to refer to when vicious dogs injure or kill people. These incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis, governed by Hernando County Ordinance (which you can find at Hernando County municode) and/or by FSS (the Hernando County Department of Health can advise which one(s) apply).”

RNRF just received word that Animal Control Officers have seized all three Pit Bulls responsible for mauling Kazmier’s Pony.

Kazmier says her Pony has made it through one night and is hopeful that it will continue to recover from the attack.

2 comments:

Anonymous
said...

This sounds like a routine case of pitbull owners who don't care what their dogs do and don't care about the welfare of their dogs. They know their dogs can be shot for injuring livestock but still let them run loose. Even when these dogs are eliminated, the owners will find more pitbulls. It takes legislation with substantial penalties to stop this.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.